re program "Britain's Real Monarch"

This was on tv here [NSW, Australia] last night and was suitably
entertaining for its 7.30pm timeslot. [The idea of a Prince Jet is
highly amusing, imo! Very 21st C. And why not??]
But, from my reading, I had understood that, irrespective of
allegedly dubious parentage, if the father chose - for whatever
reason - to accept the child as his, then it became legally so.
Am I dreaming? I also recall reading that, in an era when the fathers
were often away for lengthy periods on campaign or on business, such
a situation [public acceptance by papa of an unexpected/ill timed
pregnancy] was not all so uncommon as to be a completely rare event.
The words 'respect', 'face', 'status' and 'dowries' got mentioned, I
believe.

If it IS so, then the "real monarch of Britain" IS Elizabeth II,
isn't it [or she]? If the claim about Edward IV is true, the Windsor
dynasty may - strictly speaking, in a purely blood-lines sense - have
inherited a mongrel pup, but as the 15th Century Duke of York did not
[despite the low-key-ness of the christening] publicly disavow Edward
then.....{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que sera,
sera :) }


I rarely have/hardly ever in the past 4 years posted here, but I love
reading the messages and have had both my understanding of the period
and my formal reading list immeasurably improved by what I find here.
For that, many thanks!

--- In , oz_rain_walker
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This was on tv here [NSW, Australia] last night and was suitably
> entertaining for its 7.30pm timeslot. [The idea of a Prince Jet is
> highly amusing, imo! Very 21st C. And why not??]
> But, from my reading, I had understood that, irrespective of
> allegedly dubious parentage, if the father chose - for whatever
> reason - to accept the child as his, then it became legally so.
> Am I dreaming? I also recall reading that, in an era when the
fathers
> were often away for lengthy periods on campaign or on business,
such
> a situation [public acceptance by papa of an unexpected/ill timed
> pregnancy] was not all so uncommon as to be a completely rare
event.
> The words 'respect', 'face', 'status' and 'dowries' got mentioned,
I
> believe.

You've got a point. As you will recall, some listers do have
difficulty with the idea that York could have recognised another
man's child, but as you say men in that situation regularly did.
Appearances and "worship" were all. I'm not sure what the position
was if the mother then declared the child to have been fathered by
another. It is an odd situation because although it seems likely that
Edward wasn't really York's son (hence Clarence's behaviour), and
that his mother at one time declared this openly, he was never
legally bastardised. And the reason for that is that it seems that it
was not necessary for Richard to take this step (although his
bastardy was hinted at in Titulus Regius) because Edward's own
marriage was genuinely invalid (I would recommend Hicks' Edward V on
this - he argues that Edward IV had goe through a form of marriage
with Elizabeth Woodville - apprarently on May Day, the day of lovers -
merely in order to get her into bed, and that he had probably done
this before not only with Eleanor Butler but with other women too.
Never before had he encountered one prepared to face up to him - the
King - over it afterwards, and pit her word against his; I must say
this is my own view of the marriage - I don't think Edward actually
intended making Elizabeth his queen when he said 'I do', hence the
continued negotiations for a foreign bride. His first mistake may
have been ignoring Elizabeth's foreign connections, his second using
a local priest (ie local to the Grafton area) to do the job on this
occasion, rather than someone attached to the court who could be
relied on to back up his version of events (as, for instance, was the
case with Eleanor Butler - Stillington was according to Commines the
officiating priest).
In any case, Edward and Elizabeth, having married secretly, did not
follow up with a public exchange of vows as required by the Church,
so on those grounds alone the validity of their marriage was dubious.
I suppose Edward wouldn't have seen the point when he knew he had so
many previous wives in the background who might turn up to handbag
him and spoil the proceedings.
So Elizabeth of York wasn't really the true Yorkist heir even if her
father could be considered legitimate, as she herself was not. I'm
not sure whether she can be said to have been legitimated by the
repeal of Titulus Regius without reference to its contents or the
status of her parents' marriage. Perhaps someone with a legal
background could give us a view.



>
> If it IS so, then the "real monarch of Britain" IS Elizabeth II,
> isn't it [or she]? If the claim about Edward IV is true, the
Windsor
> dynasty may - strictly speaking, in a purely blood-lines sense -
have
> inherited a mongrel pup, but as the 15th Century Duke of York did
not
> [despite the low-key-ness of the christening] publicly disavow
Edward
> then.....{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que sera,
> sera :) }

I'm not sure there is one. I puzzled for years about what language
that was, then heard on the radio that it is indeed not correct in
any language. Spanish would be 'Lo que sera, sera'. 'Lo que era, era'
(stress in era is on first syllable, not second as in sera, which
should have an accent), I think, but my Spanish is very rusty.

I tend to agree that you can't go back. We all get a bit misty-eyed
about the persecuted Yorkist heirs, as sympathisers do in these
circumstances. There is a similar misty-eyed nostalgia amongst
O'Donnells (my maternal grandmother's lot) about the last days of
their rule in Donegal & surrounding counties at the end of the Tudor
period, the tragic death of Red Hugh at the hands of a Elizabeth I's
poisoner, and the careers of the O'Donnell grandees in exile on the
continent in the early 17th century. When it comes down to it,
though, nobody actually wants to reinstate them.


>
>
> I rarely have/hardly ever in the past 4 years posted here, but I
love
> reading the messages and have had both my understanding of the
period
> and my formal reading list immeasurably improved by what I find
here.
> For that, many thanks!

Well, it's very nice to hear from you.

Marie

> So Elizabeth of York wasn't really the true Yorkist heir even if
her
> father could be considered legitimate, as she herself was not. I'm
> not sure whether she can be said to have been legitimated by the
> repeal of Titulus Regius without reference to its contents or the
> status of her parents' marriage. Perhaps someone with a legal
> background could give us a view.
>
>
I imagine that the repeal of TR would indeed do so since Attainder
Acts were undone in the same way weren't they?
>
> >
> > If it IS so, then the "real monarch of Britain" IS Elizabeth II,
> > isn't it [or she]? If the claim about Edward IV is true, the
> Windsor
> > dynasty may - strictly speaking, in a purely blood-lines sense -
> have
> > inherited a mongrel pup, but as the 15th Century Duke of York
did
> not
> > [despite the low-key-ness of the christening] publicly disavow
> Edward
> > then.....{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que sera,
> > sera :) }
>
> I'm not sure there is one. I puzzled for years about what language
> that was, then heard on the radio that it is indeed not correct in
> any language. Spanish would be 'Lo que sera, sera'. 'Lo que era,
era'
> (stress in era is on first syllable, not second as in sera, which
> should have an accent), I think, but my Spanish is very rusty.

It is French - que = what, sera = future of to be.

>
> I tend to agree that you can't go back. We all get a bit misty-
eyed
> about the persecuted Yorkist heirs, as sympathisers do in these
> circumstances. There is a similar misty-eyed nostalgia amongst
> O'Donnells (my maternal grandmother's lot) about the last days of
> their rule in Donegal & surrounding counties at the end of the
Tudor
> period, the tragic death of Red Hugh at the hands of a Elizabeth
I's
> poisoner, and the careers of the O'Donnell grandees in exile on
the
> continent in the early 17th century. When it comes down to it,
> though, nobody actually wants to reinstate them.
>
>
> >
> >
> > I rarely have/hardly ever in the past 4 years posted here, but I
> love
> > reading the messages and have had both my understanding of the
> period
> > and my formal reading list immeasurably improved by what I find
> here.
> > For that, many thanks!
>
> Well, it's very nice to hear from you.
>
> Marie

Seconded.
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > So Elizabeth of York wasn't really the true Yorkist heir even if
> her
> > father could be considered legitimate, as she herself was not.
I'm
> > not sure whether she can be said to have been legitimated by the
> > repeal of Titulus Regius without reference to its contents or the
> > status of her parents' marriage. Perhaps someone with a legal
> > background could give us a view.
> >
> >
> I imagine that the repeal of TR would indeed do so since Attainder
> Acts were undone in the same way weren't they?

Yes, in which case unfortunately Henry VIII was legally York's heir
even though he was probably in no way related to him and his
grandparents hadn't been properly married. such is life.
> >
> > >
> > > If it IS so, then the "real monarch of Britain" IS Elizabeth
II,
> > > isn't it [or she]? If the claim about Edward IV is true, the
> > Windsor
> > > dynasty may - strictly speaking, in a purely blood-lines sense -

> > have
> > > inherited a mongrel pup, but as the 15th Century Duke of York
> did
> > not
> > > [despite the low-key-ness of the christening] publicly disavow
> > Edward
> > > then.....{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que
sera,
> > > sera :) }
> >
> > I'm not sure there is one. I puzzled for years about what
language
> > that was, then heard on the radio that it is indeed not correct
in
> > any language. Spanish would be 'Lo que sera, sera'. 'Lo que era,
> era'
> > (stress in era is on first syllable, not second as in sera, which
> > should have an accent), I think, but my Spanish is very rusty.
>
> It is French - que = what, sera = future of to be.

Indeed, as in Spanish; but French 'que' is pronounced 'ker' (with
silent r) not 'kay'. And it's not good French either; only questions
start with 'que'. Wouldn't it be 'Ce que sera'? I gave this quite
some thought at one time, being the sad person that I am, but my
French too is now sadly rusty.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
>..{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que
> sera,
> > > > sera :) }
> > >
> > > I'm not sure there is one. I puzzled for years about what
> language
> > > that was, then heard on the radio that it is indeed not correct
> in
> > > any language. Spanish would be 'Lo que sera, sera'. 'Lo que
era,
> > era'
> > > (stress in era is on first syllable, not second as in sera,
which
> > > should have an accent), I think, but my Spanish is very rusty.
> >
> > It is French - que = what, sera = future of to be.
>
> Indeed, as in Spanish; but French 'que' is pronounced 'ker' (with
> silent r) not 'kay'. And it's not good French either; only
questions
> start with 'que'. Wouldn't it be 'Ce que sera'? I gave this quite
> some thought at one time, being the sad person that I am, but my
> French too is now sadly rusty.
>
> Marie

That didn't sound at all right, and trying it the past tense
convinces me it's totally unidiomatic. I've had a flash of
inspiration and decided that 'what will be' ought to be "Ce qu'il y
aura", with past tense "ce qu'il y avait" (you know, as in 'il y a',
there is; 'il y avait une fois': once upon a time). Sorry, born a
linguistic pedant. So not a sera to be seen.

--- In , oz_rain_walker
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This was on tv here [NSW, Australia] last night and was suitably
> entertaining for its 7.30pm timeslot. [The idea of a Prince Jet is
> highly amusing, imo! Very 21st C. And why not??]
> But, from my reading, I had understood that, irrespective of
> allegedly dubious parentage, if the father chose - for whatever
> reason - to accept the child as his, then it became legally so.
> Am I dreaming? I also recall reading that, in an era when the
fathers
> were often away for lengthy periods on campaign or on business,
such
> a situation [public acceptance by papa of an unexpected/ill timed
> pregnancy] was not all so uncommon as to be a completely rare
event.
> The words 'respect', 'face', 'status' and 'dowries' got mentioned,
I
> believe.
>
> If it IS so, then the "real monarch of Britain" IS Elizabeth II,
> isn't it [or she]? If the claim about Edward IV is true, the
Windsor
> dynasty may - strictly speaking, in a purely blood-lines sense -
have
> inherited a mongrel pup, but as the 15th Century Duke of York did
not
> [despite the low-key-ness of the christening] publicly disavow
Edward
> then.....{I don't know the Latin for the past tense of Que sera,
> sera :) }
>
>
> I rarely have/hardly ever in the past 4 years posted here, but I
love
> reading the messages and have had both my understanding of the
period
> and my formal reading list immeasurably improved by what I find
here.
> For that, many thanks!

Just another point:
Richard, and Henry VII after him, ruled England, Wales and, in
theory, Ireland (but not Scotland). Some people might imagine that
this would form one rightfully Yorkist and one Stuart kingdom with
question marks over subsequent colonies such as, to take the perfect
example, Australia.
Henry's daughter Margaret later married James IV, of course, but this
was a political union not a love match. Had Richard, or Lincoln or
Warwick been King of England at that time, then one of their
daughters would have become James' Queen. The "principal" line
(hypothetical descendants of this King) may have died out just as
Henry VIII's did. The two kingdoms were falling towards each other
irrevocably and had been doing so for centuries.

Stephen

Marie
>
> That didn't sound at all right, and trying it the past tense
> convinces me it's totally unidiomatic. I've had a flash of
> inspiration and decided that 'what will be' ought to be "Ce qu'il
y
> aura", with past tense "ce qu'il y avait" (you know, as in 'il y
a',
> there is; 'il y avait une fois': once upon a time). Sorry, born a
> linguistic pedant. So not a sera to be seen.

Well aura is to have in the future, and whilst French doesn't follow
the same pattern with to be and to have which are sometimes
translated by the other in English (as with "J'ai douze ans" where
we say "I AM 12") so that it works as there will be, there is still
a valid use for sera, though whatever way you look at it is in
grammatically flawed and probably either idiomatic or a distortion
for a coloquialism. (Sorry about that sentence!) We do it all the
time in English, just as in French in everyday parlance one is more
likely to say "Aucune idée" or "Sais pas" rather than bother to
include the "Je ne". As for pronunciation, where did the saying
originate? Or when? I take it not with the song. But are we sure the
pronunciation was "kay" rather than "ker" BEFORE the song? It
wouldn't be the first time Yanks have played fast and loose with
another language! Look what thay have done with English! ;-)
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Marie
> >
> > That didn't sound at all right, and trying it the past tense
> > convinces me it's totally unidiomatic. I've had a flash of
> > inspiration and decided that 'what will be' ought to be "Ce qu'il
> y
> > aura", with past tense "ce qu'il y avait" (you know, as in 'il y
> a',
> > there is; 'il y avait une fois': once upon a time). Sorry, born a
> > linguistic pedant. So not a sera to be seen.
>
> Well aura is to have in the future,

I know.

and whilst French doesn't follow
> the same pattern with to be and to have which are sometimes
> translated by the other in English (as with "J'ai douze ans" where
> we say "I AM 12") so that it works as there will be, there is still
> a valid use for sera, though whatever way you look at it is in
> grammatically flawed and probably either idiomatic or a distortion
> for a coloquialism.

Not valid if not what is said. Try 'Ce qu'etait': Ouch! 'There is/
was/ will be, in French is expressed using y avoir: il y
a/avait/aura. Ce qu'il y aura: That which there will be. I'm very
very rusty (not used French much for nearly 30 years) but I did once
teach the language.


(Sorry about that sentence!) We do it all the
> time in English, just as in French in everyday parlance one is more
> likely to say "Aucune idée" or "Sais pas" rather than bother to
> include the "Je ne".
T'as raison. But Que sera is neither correct nor colloquial.

As for pronunciation, where did the saying
> originate? Or when? I take it not with the song. But are we sure
the
> pronunciation was "kay" rather than "ker" BEFORE the song? It
> wouldn't be the first time Yanks have played fast and loose with
> another language! Look what thay have done with English! ;-)

As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate with
the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate
with
> the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
>
> Marie

I thought it was supposed to be Italian.

Katy

> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>>
>> As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate
> with
>> the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
>>
>> Marie
>
> I thought it was supposed to be Italian.
>
> Katy

Yes Katy Que sera sera the song as per Doris Day is Italian, Spanish carries
an acute accent on the a.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> >>
> >> As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate
> > with
> >> the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
> >>
> >> Marie
> >
> > I thought it was supposed to be Italian.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Yes Katy Que sera sera the song as per Doris Day is Italian,
Spanish carries
> an acute accent on the a.
> Paul

I know, Paul - I think I mentioned that. Also to be correct it would
be "Lo que sera" (with acute accent on a).
However, that does not make it Italian. I too supposed it was Italian
until I taught myself same for a holiday many years ago.
Unfortunately I no longer remember the future tense of to be, put I
don't think it is sera (which, actualy, with stress on first
syllable, means 'evening' in Italian). The Italian for 'what' is
pronounced kay, like Spanish que, but spelt che. On the song title,
it's "que".
My Teach Yourself Italian book has gone awol, unfortunately.
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did
originate
> > > with
> > >> the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
> > >>
> > >> Marie
> > >
> > > I thought it was supposed to be Italian.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Yes Katy Que sera sera the song as per Doris Day is Italian,
> Spanish carries
> > an acute accent on the a.
> > Paul
>
> I know, Paul - I think I mentioned that. Also to be correct it
would
> be "Lo que sera" (with acute accent on a).
> However, that does not make it Italian. I too supposed it was
Italian
> until I taught myself same for a holiday many years ago.
> Unfortunately I no longer remember the future tense of to be, put I
> don't think it is sera (which, actualy, with stress on first
> syllable, means 'evening' in Italian). The Italian for 'what' is
> pronounced kay, like Spanish que, but spelt che. On the song title,
> it's "que".
> My Teach Yourself Italian book has gone awol, unfortunately.
> Marie

Just to show you how seriously I take this off-topic discussion, I've
just been up to the loft and found some of my Italian books. The 3rd
person future indicative of essere, to be, is 'sara', with a grave
accent on the second a.
So the nearest one could come in Italian is 'Che sara', and I don't
know if that is grammatically correct. In English we use 'what' in
two different ways - as an interrogative, ie to start a question; and
as a synonym for 'that which': you can't do the latter French or
Spanish, and I don't know if you can do it in Italian; my Italian
never got to that level. For what's it's worth, there is a dictionary
at the back of one of the books which gives the Italian translation
of 'whatever' as 'qualconque che'.
I see from the web that the song was written by Jay Livingston and
Ray Evans - not very Latin-sounding names. 'What will be will be' is
certainly an expression in English, but my book of Spanish idioms
doesn't seem to have an equivalent. Is it possible they were just
trying to translate an English phrase, cashing in on the fashion for
Italian-American songs, and messed it up?

Marie

>
> Not valid if not what is said. Try 'Ce qu'etait': Ouch! 'There is/
> was/ will be, in French is expressed using y avoir: il y
> a/avait/aura. Ce qu'il y aura: That which there will be. I'm very
> very rusty (not used French much for nearly 30 years) but I did
once
> teach the language.
>
So do I.
>
> (Sorry about that sentence!) We do it all the
> > time in English, just as in French in everyday parlance one is
more
> > likely to say "Aucune idée" or "Sais pas" rather than bother to
> > include the "Je ne".
> T'as raison. But Que sera is neither correct nor colloquial.
>
> As for pronunciation, where did the saying
> > originate? Or when? I take it not with the song. But are we sure
> the
> > pronunciation was "kay" rather than "ker" BEFORE the song? It
> > wouldn't be the first time Yanks have played fast and loose with
> > another language! Look what thay have done with English! ;-)
>
> As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate
with
> the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
>
> Marie

It isn't even simple enough to say sera goes with a person and aura
with an object although this seems to be predominantly the case.
Straight forward translation doesn't help either as, for instance,
we might say "He will be here tomorrow" but they would not translate
this as will be but more likely as will arrive: Il arrivera demain
or Il va arriver. Will be is normally sera, but can just as easily
be aura, and with out use of will as part of expressing our future
tense whilst they have a clear participle in its own right simply
serves to confuse us - we are the ones following the weird pattern
in fact! Being a heavily Germanic language but with significant
elements of the romantic languages after the Conquest makes English
a most peculiar mix with a lot of illogical aspects. I have now
completely forgotten why this is being discussed!
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Not valid if not what is said. Try 'Ce qu'etait': Ouch! 'There
is/
> > was/ will be, in French is expressed using y avoir: il y
> > a/avait/aura. Ce qu'il y aura: That which there will be. I'm very
> > very rusty (not used French much for nearly 30 years) but I did
> once
> > teach the language.
> >
> So do I.
> >
> > (Sorry about that sentence!) We do it all the
> > > time in English, just as in French in everyday parlance one is
> more
> > > likely to say "Aucune idée" or "Sais pas" rather than bother to
> > > include the "Je ne".
> > T'as raison. But Que sera is neither correct nor colloquial.
> >
> > As for pronunciation, where did the saying
> > > originate? Or when? I take it not with the song. But are we
sure
> > the
> > > pronunciation was "kay" rather than "ker" BEFORE the song? It
> > > wouldn't be the first time Yanks have played fast and loose
with
> > > another language! Look what thay have done with English! ;-)
> >
> > As I say, it was discussed on radio. It apparently did originate
> with
> > the song, and is probably a bad attempt at maybe Spanish.
> >
> > Marie
>
> It isn't even simple enough to say sera goes with a person and aura
> with an object although this seems to be predominantly the case.

Sorry, lost here - examples please???


> Straight forward translation doesn't help either as, for instance,
> we might say "He will be here tomorrow" but they would not
translate
> this as will be but more likely as will arrive: Il arrivera demain
> or Il va arriver. Will be is normally sera, but can just as easily
> be aura, and with out use of will as part of expressing our future
> tense whilst they have a clear participle in its own right simply
> serves to confuse us - we are the ones following the weird pattern
> in fact! Being a heavily Germanic language but with significant
> elements of the romantic languages after the Conquest makes English
> a most peculiar mix with a lot of illogical aspects.

think the "be here" and "arrivera" demonstrate brilliantly the
romance/Germanic split you mention below. Basically, these
prepositions we use in English with verbs are a very Germanic thing
(eg be here, go down, wash up, etc), where French tends to use a
single specific verb. We only have the choice between "be here"
and "arrive" because of the Conquest ('arrive' being an import from
French - I have been told it is based on "rive" a bank, and
originally referred to boats drawing up).
I have now
> completely forgotten why this is being discussed!

Good for you!

arie

> >
> > It isn't even simple enough to say sera goes with a person and
aura
> > with an object although this seems to be predominantly the case.
>
> Sorry, lost here - examples please???

Well a very simple eg would be "il y aura" and "il sera". Il meaning
both he and it, again different to English, both both CAN mean "will
be", and superficially one is inclined to question why the
difference, I suppose, especially given the use of have and be are
not the same as in English - as with age example. Literal
translation is the bane of a linguist: I remember year ago when I
was 17 replying to my French family when asked if I wnated more
food, what I had literally translated from "No thanks, I am full".
Big mistake! What the words literally meaning that ACTUALLY meant in
French was "No thanks I am pregnant!"

>
>
> > Straight forward translation doesn't help either as, for
instance,
> > we might say "He will be here tomorrow" but they would not
> translate
> > this as will be but more likely as will arrive: Il arrivera
demain
> > or Il va arriver. Will be is normally sera, but can just as
easily
> > be aura, and with out use of will as part of expressing our
future
> > tense whilst they have a clear participle in its own right
simply
> > serves to confuse us - we are the ones following the weird
pattern
> > in fact! Being a heavily Germanic language but with significant
> > elements of the romantic languages after the Conquest makes
English
> > a most peculiar mix with a lot of illogical aspects.
>
> think the "be here" and "arrivera" demonstrate brilliantly the
> romance/Germanic split you mention below. Basically, these
> prepositions we use in English with verbs are a very Germanic
thing
> (eg be here, go down, wash up, etc), where French tends to use a
> single specific verb. We only have the choice between "be here"
> and "arrive" because of the Conquest ('arrive' being an import
from
> French - I have been told it is based on "rive" a bank, and
> originally referred to boats drawing up).
> I have now
> > completely forgotten why this is being discussed!
>
> Good for you!
>
> arie

It comes with age, they tell me.
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It isn't even simple enough to say sera goes with a person and
> aura
> > > with an object although this seems to be predominantly the
case.
> >
> > Sorry, lost here - examples please???
>
> Well a very simple eg would be "il y aura" and "il sera". Il
meaning
> both he and it, again different to English, both both CAN
mean "will
> be", and superficially one is inclined to question why the
> difference, I suppose, especially given the use of have and be are
> not the same as in English - as with age example. Literal
> translation is the bane of a linguist: I remember year ago when I
> was 17 replying to my French family when asked if I wnated more
> food, what I had literally translated from "No thanks, I am full".
> Big mistake! What the words literally meaning that ACTUALLY meant
in
> French was "No thanks I am pregnant!"

I did that too. It's no wonder English girls have such a bad
reputation in France.
I think as far as the object thing is concerned, perhaps the problem
is that etre is rather a weak verb and likes a bit more propping up.
You would say 'Paul est la' rather than 'Paul y est'. 'Il se tenait
debout', rather than 'il etait debout'. I guess that is why it
doesn't feel right to me in the 'que sera' phrase. In fact I'm even
wondering whether 'arriver' in the sense of 'happen' wouldn't be a
good bet. I sort of feel we should ask a native.

Marie
>
> >